Lets see who can answer all theses questions

[sidthekid]

http://www.nasm.si.edu/nasm/aero/aircraft/lockheed_p38.htm




 here is air and space museum;s web page. P-38 was indeed credited with most kills over japanese.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by fdiron
Nuke'em till they glow then shoot'em in the dark.

Why would you make such a stuipid statement?

Are you trying to look like an prettythanghole?

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by sidthekid
Midnight wouldn't call u dumb i've seen you invest alot of time and effort to answer questions. I stated where my facts came from. Didn't say true without doubt. but go to Yokamagi's book Myths of Japan during war. Even he believes deaths were reported low on purpose to protect japanese pride. They the japanese admit they only counted the bodies they found. and figures on population was from Japanese not US numbers.  I 'll trust independant survey for opposing gov.'s well before i'll accept USA or japanese figures. Library of congrees has web site go there lots of information there including how we Kidnaped Dr. Coanda from romania in 1944. ( inventer of jet and many other patents on aero space techs. pLEASE DON'T LUMP ME IN WITH HORTLAND. I don't need to use Vulgarity to express my ideas or try to changes others idea's.

LOL, not what I meant at all, but thanks just the same. My question was directed more at the arbiters of the catch... (sandman, Elfenwolf or Sikboy)

On a side note, I wasn't attempting to answer all the questions, just looking for pictures to go along with the questions. I thought it was a hoot. Some folks here seem to think that I was cheating or some such nonsense. I would challenge any one-eyed tattooed conservative crackerbarrel here to an even-up live trivia contest... from memory.

[Duedel]

What a bummer! Great and interesting questions (plz post them in the general forum next time) and what happens ...

Why can't u guys take ur accusations to a new thread and leave this thread for none emotional discussions of the facts?

[marauder]

Originally posted by sidthekid
Marauder said: Yes, but problems with USA position:
1- Nukes after-affects (radiation) continue to kill and make
area uninhabitable for a long time afterwards.
4- Conventional bombing was done on military targets and
civilian; Nukes dropped on only civilians  Sad and scary

Sid said: well to be honest Radiation at nagaski and hiroshima Are below level of radition in most USA Cities. It cleared faster than anyone thought it would.

Your number 4 the USA bombed tokyo with incendiary bombs and of the 1million plus dead were civilians.

Well Sidthekid, I know after the clean up those two cities were
repopulated and probably sooner than Nuke experts thought would be possible. I simply was stating that after a nuke is used that area will be uninhabitable for a period of time. I never stated a certain number of years. Because I don't know how long it would be irradiated for. (and I'm not goin' to Google search to find out)
Also as you can see above in my "number 4" I stated conv. bombing was done on military AND civilian targets. I know that most killed in Tokyo were civilians (who would'nt). I'm not
getting into the numbers argument either.
I saw your earlier post in this thread that ended with "but wish it never had to come to this" and agreed with you. And just wanted to say that "the US position" comments could be debated.

[marauder]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
"1- Nukes after-affects (radiation) continue to kill and make
area uninhabitable for a long time afterwards."

Total and utter roadkill! Both Hiroshima (1,130,000) and Nagasaki (430,000)  have been huge thiriving cities since the war.

But I suppose you hate the Japanese people so much that you would have rather had a likely year plus long invasion battle over all of Japanese home islands and all the resulting casualties.  Remember the Japanese took near 100% military casualties in Iwo Jima, Saipan and Okinawa- the civilans died in even greater numbers. So I suppose you would like millions of them dead insted of 200,000 to end the war. And there were some 73,000,000 ready to die Japanese during WW2.

Do you see any mention of any city in my comment? NO. Do you see any mention that those cities have not been repopulated?
NO. I said  RADIATION  continues to kill and make AN AREA uninhabitable FOR A LONG TIME I did not get into specifics because my point was to say that what Sid posted about the "US position" (here we go again {deja vu}) was debatable.
Also about your "hate the japanese people" rant I get your point. Your saying that if nukes hadn't been used the war would have
went on longer and more would have died. (than in the 2 nuke attacks in Japan). But like Cyranno was suggesting: was it necessary to hit the (MAINLY) civilian populated Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Many people would agree with you Grunherz- that the Nuke drops were probably necessary to end the war quickly- but you put words into my mouth (post?). Because I was simply sayin' that it was sad that civilians had to die. I hope you don't disagree with that!
Btw-Don't suggest I hate a certain race of people please- if you knew me you would never do that.... peace.

[sidthekid]

Sorry probally my fault for putting number 10 in my list of questions.


 I agree with you killing civilians should be very last resort to end a war. That is why i'm not sure we shuld go after Saddam hussain. He is 1 man and we the USA have condemn Entire country because of 1 man. We saw Iraqies give up to Reporters they don't want to die for him.

 But if we go for him this time alot of woman and children are going to Die. He is such a coward he will hide behind them until the very end. Remember this man put comunication bunkers under schools and shelters in last war with us. This time he knows only end to war is his death. That concerns be more than any weapon he has.


 He will not deploy his loyal troops out of bagdad which would make us fight like in Mogodisue (forgive spelling). It will be costly to civilians more than either army...



 I for 1 would not regret passing law to take out a leader of any Nation as long as congress votes on It. this way we could just take out those ywho need it and spare many lives on both sides.

[GRUNHERZ]

Marauder you said: "AN AREA uninhabitable FOR A LONG TIME".

This is clearly incorrect. Define LONG TIME?

[marauder]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Marauder you said: "AN AREA uninhabitable FOR A LONG TIME".

This is clearly incorrect. Define LONG TIME?

No, its not incorrect its just not defined. Like I said two posts ago I don't know how long an area that had been nuked would be radioactive. I purposely said "a long time" only  because everyone knows that you would not be able to move back into a radioactive area for some time after a nuclear attack. How long?:
I'm not going to define long time because One: it wasn't my point Two: getting into the amount of time would just make people post arguements against it and links to Google found "evidence"(just look at all the people who disagreed with your numbers;)
-whew!they just come out of the woodwork don't they?)- Three: searches for an answer to "how long" on the internet would probably get conflicting numbers and lots of "expert" opinions that some here would find conflicts with what they know (leads back to point "Two" above) Four: i'm just too damned lazy to look it up!:D
Mmmussst get some sleeeeep, work tomorrow; M. out  

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by CyranoAH
I think the issue here is not if it was right to drop the bombs or not (arguable, but a strategic decision, it's war), but if it was right to drop it on two cities with no strategic value, no military targets whatsoever, and with people that had lived there without even thinking about being a target for the entirety of the war.

Then suddenly, two cities are wiped out.

In my opinion, the japanese high command would have got the message simply by dropping the bomb on a military target... heck, even CLOSE to one.

Just drop one say 10 Km from a military target and say "see what we did? We can wipe out Tokyo with just one of those".

Anyway what it's done it's done, I just think they could've dropped them somewhere else with the same strategic results.

Daniel

 Obviously I'll be corrected to the detriment of my fragile little mind, HOWEVER....
I've read that the Japanese seriously considered surrendering only AFTER the Russians declared war.
(NO I am Not discounting the effects of the atomic bombs)

 Tronsky

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by Shuckins
Tronsky,

I'm afraid you're wrong about the P-38 my friend.  It did shoot down more Japanese aircraft than any other U.S. Army Air Force fighter.

Credited with some 5,200 victories, carrier- and land-based F6Fs destroyed as many Japanese aircraft as the P-38, P-40, P-47, P-51 and P-61 combined, including those in the landlocked China/Burma/India theater. (Barrett Tillman;  Most Influential Fighters, WW II Fighters, special edition of Flight Journal, winter 2000.)


Regards, Shuckins

errrrrr ok, My guess was going to be the F4U Corsair, but I think this is probably mean't for sidthekid

-tron-